Why do Obama followers keep bringing up the specter of 1968?

[anamandujano]

I have read that too many times the past few days. Are they trying to get something started if things don't go their way?

Is anyone else troubled with this?

[rinsd]

1. Because they figure threats to burn down the Democratic Party are cool.

[NOLALady]

2. 1968.

You mean they are expecting assassinations? If the Obama camp believes he will be assassinated, that is troubling.

[SteppingRazor]

5. I believe the reference is to the 1968 Convention, not the assassinations of MLK and RFK. n/t

[DJ13]

3. Maybe because Obama leads in delegates, states won, and total votes cast

& the notion none of that matters as long as Hillary can buy enough super delegates to win the nomination?


Maybe it pisses them off?

Just a guess....
:eyes:

[SteppingRazor]

4. Well, there are similarities...

leaving aside the whole getting the snot beat out of you by cops thing, the 1968 Democratic Convention is the last one in which the choice of most of the people, Gene McCarthy, was overturned by the party at the convention, when it went with Hubert Humphrey.

There are more-recent examples of a popular candidate getting left in the dust on the campaign due to superdelegate preference (Mondale's win over Hart in 1984 springs immediately to mind), but nothing since 1968 has actually come down to the convention as this might.

[Bongo Prophet]

7. You have it. At least as I interpret that.

You may have noticed also that a few months ago, when Hillary was "the inevitable, unstoppable heir", that there were many calls for loyalty oaths here. Now that Obama is slightly ahead and with some momentum, that has done a 180, and Hillary supporters are starting threads about not EVER voting for THAT MAN.

the whole thing is quite surreal, and I hope we can come to a democratically satisfactory end.

[anamandujano]

11. Obama started the "will not vote" thing in one of his rallies.

Posters here took it up so don't blame Hillary supporters for that.

[NorthernSpy]

6. "if things don't go their way" is a euphemism for "if the superdelegates overrule the people"

Why don't you be that honest, at least?

[anamandujano]

8. So threats of violence and destroying the convention are OK?

Are there not other ways to be heard?

It would also be nice is Obama chose a position on this and stuck with it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. 1. Nobody's threatening violence, it's all in your imagination.

2. The people who caused the violence in 1968 were the ones that picked the nominee against the will of the people.

[anamandujano]

12. Constantly bringing up the specter is as good as saying "look what

might happen."

Very flip and dismissive to call it "my imagination" but you knew that.

"The will of the people" is all fine and dandy until it doesn't coincide with an Obama victory. what about the disenfranchised in Floria and Michigan? You can say that you're just following rules. The supers have been in place a very long time. Why not follow those rules also.

It is not evident, other than assertions from Obama and his camp, that the supers are going against the "will of the people."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. So then why are you bringing up the specter?

"The will of the people" is all fine and dandy until it doesn't coincide with and Obama victory. what about the disenfranchised in Floria and Michigan?

Actually, Obama's winning even taking Florida and Michigan into account.

:shrug:

"It is not evident, other than assertions from Obama and his camp, that the supers are going against the "will of the people.""

Oh, it's quite evident. It's also evident that you're not interested in an honest discussion.

[anamandujano]

15. There have been posts, even threads putting it forward by Obama

supporters. I mentioned that when starting this thread. Haven't you seen them?

I'm being honest. If we aren't having an honest discussion, perhaps you should look to yourself as the source of the problem.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Well, there was a debate among hawks versus doves.

Same thing today, even though the hawks don't want to admit it.

[Alhena]

14. I support huge, spirited, but peaceful demonstrations in Denver if the party elites

try to steal this election from the voters.

Having said that, I very seriously doubt it will get that far. The party leadership isn't stupid. Well, maybe it is, but it's not THAT stupid- they know this can't go to a brokered convention.

Don't take my word for it- Howard Dean has said as much. And Obama is clearly the stronger general election candidate, so that's who the party elites will choose.

[anamandujano]

16. The "party elites" have disenfranchised the voters in Florida and Michigan

but that's OK with you.

And you may want to email your leader about your peaceful demonstrations, if he has a leg to stand on.

I do applaud your post though and hope it gets some traction here at DU.